9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the delay in passing the Order of Detention, non-consideration of a vital document (Nil Panchanama) by the Detaining Authority, and the allegation of total non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. Delay in passing the Order of Detention: The Detaining Authority detained the individual under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The Detaining Authority passed the Order of Detention against several persons, including the detenu, based on intelligence gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The detenu's brother challenged the detention on the grounds of delay in passing the order. The Detaining Authority received the proposal on 14.12.2006, and the order was finally passed on 11.4.2007. The Detaining Authority claimed to have considered a 7419-page document before approving the detention, but the court found discrepancies in the timeline presented in the affidavit. The court emphasized the need for careful consideration before exercising the power to detain individuals without trial. Due to the delay and procedural irregularities, the High Court quashed the Order of Detention dated 11th February, 2008, and ordered the immediate release of the detenu, Amit Bajaj. Non-consideration of vital document (Nil Panchanama): The Detaining Authority's decision to detain the individual was also challenged on the grounds that a vital document, the Nil Panchanama, was not considered before passing the Order of Detention. The Detaining Authority's affidavit mentioned the extensive scrutiny of documents before approving the detention. However, the court found discrepancies in the timeline presented by the Detaining Authority, raising doubts about the thoroughness of the decision-making process. The failure to consider crucial documents like the Nil Panchanama raised concerns about the validity of the detention order. The court highlighted the importance of proper consideration of all relevant documents and evidence before exercising the power to detain individuals. Ultimately, the High Court quashed the Order of Detention due to these procedural lapses. Total non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority: The detenu's brother also alleged that the Detaining Authority showed a total non-application of mind in passing the Order of Detention. The Detaining Authority claimed to have carefully reviewed the proposal and supporting documents before approving the detention. However, the court found discrepancies in the timeline presented in the Detaining Authority's affidavit, casting doubt on the thoroughness of the decision-making process. The court emphasized the need for Detaining Authorities to apply their minds judiciously when exercising the power to detain individuals without trial. The court highlighted the extraordinary nature of this power and stressed the importance of exercising it with care and diligence. Due to the concerns raised about the Detaining Authority's decision-making process, the High Court quashed the Order of Detention and ordered the immediate release of the detenu, Amit Bajaj.
|
